Talk:Neuroevolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Revert on 1/27/2008

Icanhasnawlidge: the version of this article with changes by 82.82.142.122 (oldid=184755569), seemed like a reasonable improvement. I don't see any significant changes to content, and none that should require removing those changes entirely. Could you justify your revert a bit more? Bryan Silverthorn (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bryan. As I stated, adding new information to the article is good. However, the author also removed existing information (information that I believe was was helpful) without any discussion. I believe it is on THAT author to explain his removal, not me to explain my revert. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition by the original 82.82.142.122 editor: I have re-inserted the content that was removed by the previous revert. This time I kept all 4 references to the NEAT articles by Stanley et al., although I would suggest that we cite only the most prominent articles on a particular method, especially since NEAT has a Wikipedia page of its own. Some of the places where these articles were referenced in the first paragraph we not NEAT-specific, therefore I moved these references downwards into the NEAT item. Icanhasnawlidge, do you agree with this version?

I think it's difficult to argue for the removal of information, which is what you did. Yes, I understand that NEAT wasn't being mentioned specifically where some of the references were present. Regardless, the articles cited provided substantial information on neuroevolution in general. They were solid references which were very informative. I think their removal, and relegation to a NEAT-specific section, only harms the article. You have removed information and replaced it with a void - I don't believe this helps anyone. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to join the discussion unasked, but I cannot find the content that was removed, according to your account. Maybe the diff is malfunctioning? I found that the number of references to the Stanley et al articles was reduced, yes. Maybe someone could read the articles and help us identify one or two that contain all the information needed? Usually in a number of scientific articles by the same author group on the same subject there is a lot of overlap.

Best, Ned. 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"I found that the number of references to the Stanley et al articles was reduced, yes." That is the information I was referring to (as I made very clear). Those articles would be very useful to those interested in neuroevolution. Removing them reduces the amount of information made readily available to the reader. Having a discussion about replacing the references with something more general would be one thing... but that isn't what occurred... they were simply removed. I won't attempt to make this point any longer. 80.194.146.50 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any major objection to the article as it is now, with all of the references intact? If your concern is with the placement of the Stanley et al references, they can be rearranged... Bryan Silverthorn (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Building The Article

There have been a few back/forths in this article with people changing the text to what they think it should be. I think rather than arguing about who is right or wrong, it's most beneficial to simply find reliable sources and reference them properly.

Currently, this is a very small article, but hopefully it will grow in size in the future as there is much to say on the topic. At a minimum, in my opinion, we need to introduce the concepts of: genome, chromosomes and phenotype. 'Genome' is already used in the article, 'network' is being used in place of 'phenotype' and 'chromosomes' would help to fill out people's knowledge of the subject's fundamentals. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)